Reengaging Sudan

Regional diplomatic and humanitarian progress in the Darfur territories continues to be ineffectual and slow. Darfur’s camps are becoming increasingly overcrowded and dangerous, and the numbers of murdered and displaced persons steadily increase with each passing day. According to United Nations estimates, over 200,000 innocents have perished and close to 2.5 million have fled their homes and villages in an effort to escape the brutality.

Casualties are now being felt on all sides. Even the humanitarian service workers, who are usually protected with tight private security as part of their nongovernmental status, are not safe. Recent atrocities committed by regional rebels exacerbate this highly unstable situation. Just last week, ten African Union peacekeepers were murdered and dozens more kidnapped in a highly organized and bloody operation close to Nyala in the central region of Darfur. This attack comes on the heels of a recently introduced three-stage joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping mission slated to commence responsibilities this month, and a highly anticipated inter-state conference on how to address the conflict, which will take place in Libya at October’s end.

In Sudan, the social apparatus is dislodged, the national economy is in complete disrepair, and the political situation speaks for itself. I hate to believe that Sudan is relegated to failed state status. After all, unlike its violent counterpart, Somalia, Sudan has vital natural resources that have the potential to help the nation stand on its own two feet so long as the violence is dramatically diminished and the government embraces neoliberal, market-driven economic policies.

It will be decades before Sudan as a whole can achieve social and economic prosperity. Even in the southern regions of Juba and Rumbek, where a cease-fire between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement has been effectively implemented, the remnants of a bloody, prolonged twenty-year ethnic and civil fratricide is more apparent than ever. This is Africa’s longest running civil war to date.

Like Darfur, there is little if any functioning infrastructure, the economy is completely fractured, and disease and poverty are rampant. Underdevelopment is an understatement. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed into effect in January 2005 and monitored by the United Nations Mission in the Sudan, has done little to stem the tide of intermittent violence and economic exploitation by the Khartoum government. It is in danger of collapse, however, due to government sabotage and international neglect, the latter a cruel irony in that preoccupation to conclude the CPA negotiations led to initial reluctance to address the developing Darfur crisis in 2003-2004.

Despite its drawbacks, the CPA has been firmly enmeshed in social and political affairs within these areas. Two initiatives need to be pursued to expedite the dividends that urgently need to be provided. First, an increased United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force should be embedded in the areas deemed vulnerable to security breaches. This does not mean moving personnel from Darfur over to the south. It means withdrawing emphasis from an aid-based led mission to one steeped in peacekeeping strategy. Once the security situation is firmly addressed, the hybrid force and UNMIS must then turn to enhancing the South’s stated right of political and economic self-determination. Sharing needed resources and decision-making capabilities with the repressive central government is detrimental to the pursuance of democratization and a respectable human rights situation. As Africa’s largest country, it is unacceptable to allow the plight of the Sudanese people to fall by the wayside. Many think that finding a peaceable solution to Sudan’s conflicts is a means to an end. This notion cannot be more wrong. If the international community is to allow stagnation to perpetuate, this only invites the possibility for renewed conflicts to erupt.

The Darfur conflict has grown increasingly complex. The violence has often been characterized as government-backed Arab tribes slaughtering non-Arab tribes, and four years ago, when the heavy fighting began, that may have been the best simplification of what was happening. But recently, Arab tribes have begun fighting Arab tribes, rebels have begun fighting rebels and armed men who seem to have no allegiances are attacking whoever crosses their path.

Understanding that much of the international community has signed on to condemn the conflict, it is critical that these global actors use their leveraging capacities to become potent arbiters and power brokers. The changing character of the Darfur crisis requires this.

The talks scheduled to take place on October 27 in Tripoli, Libya will mark definitive peace talks to end this four-year massacre. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is one of the most outspoken advocates for peace in the region. He has emphasized that the Tripoli meeting is of capital importance noting, “The forthcoming political negotiation in Libya must be a conclusive one, a final phase for a final settlement. All the leaders of the movements and concerned parties must participate. This was a consensus opinion.” But, while this conference holds major symbolic importance, we must not be mistaken as to how difficult it will be to develop a cohesive peace solution between the Sudanese government and the splintered rebel factions.

The hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission set for deployment this month is a solid effort resulting from numerous stalled talks and bickering between major players in the conflict. The UNAMID operation will effectively seek to support the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement, uphold human rights and adherence to the rule of law, and ensure the protection of its personnel and civilians. Enforcing the Darfur Peace Agreement is critical. First, it was signed by Darfur’s largest rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Movement, and second, it calls for the complete, verifiable disarmament and demobilization of the Khartoum sponsored Janjaweed militia.

UNAMID has the potential to be one of the more potent peacekeeping operations undertaken in recent history. While the operation is expected to achieve its benchmarks of initial deployment by early January, it must first overcome some of its key missing capacities. Critical ground transport and aviation are lacking. If these aspects are not delivered, the mission’s ability to carry out its work will be seriously impeded.

It is important that tangible progress be made very soon. Allowing this conflict to continue when conciliation and compromise have ostensibly been met provides very little excuse for international actors to make. The United Nations can only rely on sanctions to such an extent until it realizes there lack of utility and persuasion. Peace not only in Darfur, but throughout Sudan hinges on remaining optimistic, successful establishment of the CPA, halting the violence, and including all Sudan’s voices.

Bush, The World, and Climate Change

The stubbornness of the Bush administration to take an assertive leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very disconcerting. Three monumental conferences occurred last week that have at least brought major international players to the table for negotiation, but our government’s rejection of placing firm caps on its emissions leave little room for compromise and leadership taking.

On September 24, The United Nations General Assembly convened a unique High-Level Session in which dozens of heads of states addressed the topic. On the twenty-sixth, the Clinton Global Initiative brought governments, NGOs, intellectuals, and media to focus attention on the issues of climate change from the bottom up, in effect, the kind of pressure that comes from civil society and industry that makes it possible to achieve many of the technological changes, but keeps all of us and our governments honest. The final event had the Bush administration itself host leaders from fifteen major economies for an unprecedented meeting.

For a week, all attention was focused on the most potent global emergency human civilization has ever faced. I commend President Bush for his forward-looking vision on at least realizing the bitter reality of climate change. What I cannot understand is why he would convene such an event amongst the major economies principally responsible for the vast majority of emissions if the U.S. itself is unwilling to solidify progress on the issue’s most crucial aspect: carbon caps.

The Kyoto Protocol sets environmental goals and obligations for its signatories to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Even Russia, a country that has consistently been moving towards state centralization, signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1999 (although there was some debate over its stipulations and it did not ratify the protocol until September 2004). Regardless, the refusal of President Bush and the Australians to sign the agreement back in 2001 virtually handicaps this initiative. Kyoto expires in 2012 and numerous conferences have moved many of the world’s powerful industrial economies (including the 171 signatories) to find ways to create a more pragmatic, feasible international regime. We are lucky that Kyoto is bound for expiration in the near future; the agreement was paralyzed from the start because its provisions did not require major emitters, most notably China and India, to reduce their emissions activities.

Both the United States and China are the world largest emitters, with the U.S. producing almost 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year according to the Energy Information Administration’s most recent estimate. It seems only logical that these states lead the crusade for survival. As such, they should commit to prompt, binding, enforceable greenhouse gas reductions, not make promises about aspirational goals. Anything less will fail to seriously address global warming, and all nations will suffer the consequences.

While the U.N. conference focused on how to replace its existing treaty, President Bush’s conference took a different approach. Under the U.S. plan, there would be no minimum requirements or penalties for failing to meet goals. According to Secretary of State Rice, a “pledge and review” approach should be pursued whereby any state can create its own policy and present it at international meetings. This bake sale approach lacks a whole load of shortening. It is only really appropriate for poorer nations.

In his speech at the State Department, President Bush noted, “Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.”

Unfortunately, without mandatory cuts in these greenhouse gases, no state will transparently abide by the quota if they know full well the U.S. is not concerned with the same restrictions. The lack of third-party enforcement on this issue is a highly debilitating factor. Effectively getting nations to set their own emissions limits is not the answer. Inter-state bargaining in this fashion is no longer an option. A comprehensive, enforceable alternative to Kyoto is the only way to get every industrialized nation to set binding targets.

President Bush has effectively put the U.S. at the center of the global warming debate but has done so in the most of arrogant ways: challenging the legitimacy of the U.N. just one more time. By refusing to attend the U.N. proceedings on the twenty-fourth and instead opting to focus on his gathering of leaders the following Friday, he has impeded progress on this pandemic. History shows that competing initiatives between the world’s hegemonic power and trusted international institutions lead to grave discord.

Alleviating the world of the problems associated with climate change cannot be accomplished in a unilateralist, adventurist manner. Bush has come to believe that any problem can be solved with American might. The effects of global warming are blind to race, ethnicity, creed, or socioeconomic status. This is an issue that will require every invested power from every part of our globe to come to a joined consensus. If the U.S. will not take the lead and enforce binding commitments who will? I surely doubt China will be up to the task.